Jump to content

      













CANCELLED
Speed and Frances, west tower
Uses: condo, commercial
Address: 606 Speed Avenue
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Urban core
Storeys: 12
Condo units: 83 (loft, 1BR, 2BR)
Sales status: in planning
Speed and Frances, west tower, is a 12-storey residential building with 83 condos, six townhomes and ground fl... (view full profile)
Learn more about Speed and Frances, west tower on Citified.ca
Photo

[Burnside/Gorge] Speed and Frances towers | condos; commercial | 12 & 12-storeys | Cancelled


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
255 replies to this topic

#1 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 2,272 posts

Posted 28 January 2011 - 11:45 AM

Burnside/Gorge proposed development
606-618 Frances Av and 605-629 Speed Ave
Oakwood Park Estates

http://www.burnsideg...etter/Ebook.pdf

224 unit condo development

Community meeting 13Dec2010 7pm @ 471 Cecelia


There's an article in today's T-C about this one. With 224 units, and proposed heights of 8 and 14 storeys, it can probably be included in the VV "Major Projects Database"; perhaps a thread could be started as well?

Affordable Units Included in Proposal Near Mayfair
Darron Kloster, Times Colonist
January 28, 2011
http://www.timescolo...1456/story.html

A Victoria developer wants to build a 224-unit residential complex across from Mayfair Shopping Centre and designate nearly half as affordable housing to address the critical need for lower income workers and families in the region [...]

#2 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,675 posts

Posted 28 January 2011 - 12:56 PM

Affordable Units Included in Proposal Near Mayfair
Darron Kloster, Times Colonist
January 28, 2011
http://www.timescolo...1456/story.html


Only in Victoria would 14 stories ever be called a high-rise. It's mid-rise in my books. It will be interesting if this one comes to pass.

#3 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,957 posts

Posted 28 January 2011 - 01:01 PM

The taller building looks to be really wide, doesn't it? It's about the same height as the Juliet but about twice as wide.

Maybe it's not such a big deal in that part of town, but (as usual) I wish they'd add a story or two on top and cut the overall width down by a third or so.

And set the top couple of floors back a bit. Enough with the View Towers "flat top" esthetic!

#4 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,888 posts

Posted 28 January 2011 - 08:15 PM

I am all for this. Though if you want to get depressed read the comments section following the story. One there is advocating large setbacks!!! * shakes head.

#5 Robb

Robb
  • Member
  • 188 posts

Posted 28 January 2011 - 08:43 PM

I went down to city hall and had a look at the plans today.

I like the idea of town homes along Speed and ground floor commercial on Francis.

I think the developers are wrong that it won’t stick out (as I commented on the TC site). Not saying a tower there would be terrible, but don’t be dishonest; it will be by far the tallest thing around.

There also doesn’t seem to be any provision for green space around the building or a playground. I think that is a necessity given the light industrial / commercial nature of the neighbourhood.


#6 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 50,558 posts

Posted 29 January 2011 - 11:40 AM

There's an article in today's T-C about this one. With 224 units, and proposed heights of 8 and 14 storeys, it can probably be included in the VV "Major Projects Database"; perhaps a thread could be started as well?


For sure. I'll work that into the system once I return to town.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#7 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,957 posts

Posted 29 January 2011 - 12:29 PM

Only in Victoria would 14 stories ever be called a high-rise.


A quick Google search of "14-story highrise" suggests otherwise.

It does seem funny to me that a 14-story proposal downtown can be controversial even when it abides by the height restrictions or is otherwise about the same height as nearby buildings, whereas 14 stories in an area that has no highrises at all doesn't seem to generate the same amount of noise.

#8 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,957 posts

Posted 29 January 2011 - 12:38 PM

Victoria just does not get it...taller with larger setbacks is better than short and abutting the sidewalk.

If he means towers should be set back above zero-setback podiums then his remark isn't quite as ridiculous as it might first seem.

However, if he means he loves towers that are set way back and if he's also suggesting that Victoria doesn't have any, then he's apparently unaware of the existence of Orchard House, Regents Park, the Y-lot, etc.

#9 D.L.

D.L.
  • Member
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 29 January 2011 - 03:36 PM

I wonder if the end of Speed Ave. could be turned into a small park with a playground, since it is a dead-end street. Oh well, looking at the site plan for the other project proposed for Speed Ave. (http://vibrantvictor...read.php?t=2710) it looks like the other project has its vehicle entrance towards the end of the street, so there isn't realy enough room to do anything usefull at the end instead.

#10 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,888 posts

Posted 29 January 2011 - 07:13 PM

The need for a park seems a little crazy to me. It is a five minute walk to the Cecilia creek Park entrance to the Galloping Goose Trail. It is also five minutes (400 metres) to the Burnside Gorge Community School building which has playing fields around it and about 1 minute from there down Sumas is a brand new playground. Let alone the fact that the Community Centre is maybe another 2 minutes farther.

I think that there is adequate options for play. We do not need to have a park on every block and I am a parent of two tots by the way and live very close to this proposal.

I think that the fact that this is a fourteen storey building is the selling point. So far the tall icon of the area is the lovely clock tower on Mayfair that has not told the correct time since at least 1995 when I moved here.

It is too bad that the motel will still be along Douglas but one could hope that this could spur further development. I would love to see a little urban strip along Finlayson between Gorge and Blanshard.

#11 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 29 January 2011 - 07:51 PM

^ There is a playground on Sumas? That sounds as appetizing as sending the kids to the playground behind Wellburns...

Certainly if there is space the developers might consider that this will be a family-oriented building and include a playground. But its probably not for the city to demand one.

Sounds like a great place for more density - I hope this gets built.

#12 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,888 posts

Posted 29 January 2011 - 08:01 PM

I take my kids to the playground behind Wellburns all the time. The Sumas one is awesome. Brand new amazing slide. Try and expand your horizons, the lower middle class do not have coodies.

#13 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 29 January 2011 - 08:58 PM

I go to Sumas once or twice a week and its a pretty rough street - not lower-middle class, but crack-addict class. Glad to hear that the playground at Wellburns is OK though becasue thats the nearest to our house.

#14 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,957 posts

Posted 29 January 2011 - 09:22 PM

I was just looking at aerial pictures and it seems to me that the taller building would be about as wide as View Towers. I'm just not digging that. It's way too wide. My calendar shows 2011, not 1971. Have we not learned anything? Visual monotony? Shadowing? Blocked views? Does the design panel get any say on this proposal? (not to suggest that the design panel has done much good in any prior instance, but I nevertheless hold out hope...)

As for the architecture, I'm not sure what to expect. I sure as hell hope it will be better than Ross Place (which I mention because I believe it's currently the tallest building north of downtown, is it not?).

#15 Robb

Robb
  • Member
  • 188 posts

Posted 30 January 2011 - 02:01 AM

The need for a park seems a little crazy to me. It is a five minute walk to the Cecilia creek Park entrance to the Galloping Goose Trail. It is also five minutes (400 metres) to the Burnside Gorge Community School building which has playing fields around it and about 1 minute from there down Sumas is a brand new playground. Let alone the fact that the Community Centre is maybe another 2 minutes farther.

I think that there is adequate options for play. We do not need to have a park on every block and I am a parent of two tots by the way and live very close to this proposal.

I think that the fact that this is a fourteen storey building is the selling point. So far the tall icon of the area is the lovely clock tower on Mayfair that has not told the correct time since at least 1995 when I moved here.

It is too bad that the motel will still be along Douglas but one could hope that this could spur further development. I would love to see a little urban strip along Finlayson between Gorge and Blanshard.


For what it's worth, our little 30 unit building at 630 Speed was required by the city to include a playground.

#16 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,888 posts

Posted 30 January 2011 - 08:21 AM

No the site is definitely not as wide as view towers. I was walking the site yesterday.

#17 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,888 posts

Posted 30 January 2011 - 08:22 AM

For what it's worth, our little 30 unit building at 630 Speed was required by the city to include a playground.


Excellent so there is already one there.

#18 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,957 posts

Posted 30 January 2011 - 09:14 AM

...the site is definitely not as wide as view towers. I was walking the site yesterday.

Be sure to let the authorities know about the space-time disruption that occurred while you were there.




picture from http://www.timescolo...1456/story.html

#19 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,957 posts

Posted 30 January 2011 - 09:32 AM

So what's the deal? Am I wrong to believe the project extends through to the other side of the block?

Or is the taller building set further back from Speed Ave. than the shorter building (and the houses)?

If the mere mention of "View Towers" rubs people the wrong way then I'll use the Wave on Yates as my measuring stick instead. The proposed building seems to be at least as wide as the Wave, and probably a little bit wider.

So is that really the format that we want?

#20 Robb

Robb
  • Member
  • 188 posts

Posted 30 January 2011 - 11:25 AM

Excellent so there is already one there.


Yes, on private property behind a locked gate, that the neighbours will not have access to.

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users